This is from memory, and I'm on vacation so I don't have my notes here... But didn't Peter originally attempt a facial challenge, but the judge questioned whether he had standing? Then he changed tactics to follow Bernstein/Karn more closely and //not// mount a facial challenge... -Declan On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, John Young wrote:
Declan wrote:
I think that's about right. One of the important questions was how broadly Patel would rule, whether her ruling would apply just to Bernstein & associates or whether she would enjoin the government from enforcing ITAR/EAR at all.
Unfortunately, she chose the former. But look on the bright side: her narrow decision may be less likely to be reversed, no?
Does this not shift now to Peter Junger's suit: same issues, broader challenge, same opposing arguments? Did Patel rule narrowly in Bernstein to set the stage for the broader case in the works?
BTW, is there a suit being readied to follow Peter's? Karn II? PRZ 6.0?
What say, Peter, Lee, Cindy, Phil, Phil, Anthony et al?